This is why Ron Paul attracts some liberals.

[iverglas]

15. and this is why I'm not a "liberal"

The enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend. Ron Paul is not my friend. Not as a woman, an activist for human rights, or even as a pot smoker. (I'm not in the US, but if I were, I would hardly believe voting for Ron Paul was going to liberate me from drug laws.)

It's all too easy to adopt a position commonly held by "liberals" -- like drug decriminalization -- and wrap one's self up in the liberal flag on that basis. And it's all too common. Self-interest passed off as liberalism: Phil Ochs had these "liberals" nailed:

A genuine progressive can make the necessary distinctions. A genuine progressive doesn't support a candidate whose policies would devastate the lives of so many people because there happens to be a superficial resemblance between one of those policies and something in the progressive agenda.

A genuine progressive can distinguish between anti-imperialism and isolationism.

A genuine progressive can even distinguish between a real libertarian and Ron Paul. Real libertarians don't advocate enslaving women to their anti-choice agenda.

I saw this thread because I was asked to serve on the jury for the OP, which voted 3-3, i.e. to leave it on a tie. I feel a little responsible for that since I was ambivalent.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If this were a direct call to support Paul, I would understand it to be impermissible. Instead, it is a statement of a not uncommon position, falling (perhaps carefully) short of a statement of voting intentions, e.g., and one <that> cries out to be refuted whenever and wherever possible, as it can be fairly easily. I understand that people at DU are tired of doing that. <I omit another comment I made as not directly relevant to the post.> - iverglas